I've never really seen the "punishment" rhetoric outside the British press; among the EU-27, the assumption seems to be that the consequences of a hard Brexit will be bad enough. The problem with a hard Brexit is all the non-tariff barriers [1] that will kick in. This is unavoidable: lack of tariffs was never that big a benefit of EU membership, because the EU has few tariffs as is and one of the lowest weighted mean tariff rates in the world. The benefit of the single market is that British products and services are basically treated just like domestic products and services in all the other member states for regulatory purposes.

This will force Britain to largely keep regulations for products that are being exported in line with the EU's (as its biggest export market), while still adding costs [2].

Nobody seriously believes that the British economy will implode as a result; what it will do is retard economic growth somewhat (economists argue how much) and possibly create structural problems in sectors that are heavily reliant on exports.

P.S.: I would also not rely on the Daily Express. It's probably one of the worst British tabloids.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-tariff_barriers_to_trade

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/69202760-c3a2-11e6-9bca-2b93a6856...

Probably because the EU 27's rhetorical tactic is to claim all the ways they come up with to punish Britain over Brexit are simply inevitable consequences of Brexit, regardless how obvious it is that they're just things they've pulled out their ass for naked political reasons. For example, their bizarre interpretation of a rule forbidding countries from negotiating trade agreements unilaterally to mean the EU couldn't negotiate its post-exit trade agreements with the UK until the UK actually exited (hurting members with close trading ties to the UK), or cynical insistence Spain must get a veto on the deal because of the Gibraltar border but Ireland doesn't get one.

All the EU27 get a veto on the deal. Spain just got a sentence inserted in the official reply.

You can't use the Express as a source, it's not a creditable newspaper and has it's own agenda here.

Well, Reuters also had an article on the meeting and the goals, if you prefer that source: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-diplomacy-id...

Much, thanks.

Yet the main article is from The Guardian...

Your comment is over simplistic because many reputable news outlets are reporting the hard observable fact that a general election has been called. Therefore the fact that the Guardian is a source for this is irrelevant. A single newspaper, The Daily Express is reporting comments made by a single Danish MEP, who could be from some mad fringe party for all we know, as if this is the official policy of four nation states. Therefore the Express article is mostly speculation based on a secondary source of information; a person whose personal agenda and relation to the Danish Government's official foreign policy is unknown.

Dane here. According to the article he is from the Danish People's Party. Although pretty right wing on issues like immigration, they're not exactly a fringe party these days but also they have never been a governing party.

As for the official foreign policy, I think our government is sorry to see the UK leave ship as we have often had similar objectives when it came to EU politics. I don't think there is any desire to "punish" Britain as far as the Danish government is concerned.

I'm not debating the fact that a general election has been called as the Guardian has reported.

its own agenda.

Define "fine".

It's a bit like pointing out to environmentalists that the earth itself will be fine; it's true but glossing over a huge amount of detail of what might actually be lost.

Possibly the most accurate prophecy I've read on twitter is that we'll gradually forget that people used to migrate to the UK from Ireland for economic reasons, as it becomes the other way round. The UK is likely to move smoothly from importing workers to young people going abroad (with greater difficulty) in order to find work. And the Home Office net migration figures will declare this a success.

Brexit won't demolish the UK, but it will cripple growth and cut us out of a whole bunch of global opportunities.

(Unless the Home Office goes to kick out the 3m Europeans already here, in which case we're back to tanks-in-the-streets apocalypses)

The desire for a trade war with the UK is not exactly high on the continent, especially considering the debt crisis is still looming over Brussels.

The UK will probably get a deal like Norway and will be better off without Brussels.

But then many other EU countries will ask: Who actually needs the political union?

> The UK will probably get a deal like Norway and will be better off without Brussels.

EEA membership (which is what Norway has) includes:

* Freedom of movement.

* Contributions to the EU budget.

* Implementing most EU regulations without actually having representation in the bodies that decide them.

This would not go over well with Leave voters and would basically be a worse deal for the UK than remaining in the EU would be.

The UK won't get a deal like Norway because UK politics prohibits it; it's not politically acceptable to continue to send billions to the EU after leaving. If UK were to contribute as much to the EU as Norway per capita, it would be over 2 billion EUR per year.

They also have higher per-capita immigration from the EU, which is apparently also a political no-no for the UK.

I don't know where you get your information from with regard to the desire for a trade war. It is wishful thinking at best. The UK will not come to any settlement within the allotted time frame with the EU and will have to accept default terms if they want to continue trading. I don't think we can underestimate the enmity that already exists because of Brexit. There will be a huge payback for this. What is left of the UK will have a huge hostile super-power right on its doorstep.

"Brussels" is not in debt.

The monetary union has serious problems, but not all the countries in the EU are part of it.

Most of the countries in the EU are in the Eurozone too. The UK is pretty much the last major economy in the EU that's outside the Eurozone, and one of only two EU members that are not in theory obliged to join it as soon as they're able to.

Doesn't really matter what three countries want. You'd need to get agreement from 27 countries. That is why trade deals are so hard for the EU to do. I really doubt we'll be getting a deal in the next two years.

A more likely outcome is a French Exit or the collapse of a large Italian bank causing the end of the EU as we know it. Then we can make trade deals with individual countries.

If this was going to happen, it would have happened during the peak of "Grexit" talk about Greece. Greece were doing incredibly badly out of the EU at that point, far worse than the UK could ever be said to be experiencing, and decided not to leave. That's why I don't think further fragmentation is likely, and the banking system has been shored up.

French exit would kill the EU, but I think we'll see another narrow defeat for Le Pen. But I could be wrong there, it's volatile.

Of course the UK will be fine. The doomsday rhetoric is completely out of hand.

The EU is going to fragment and crumble over the next ten years. And Europa will be, if not fine then at least better for it.

"The doomsday rhetoric is completely out of hand."

"The EU is going to fragment and crumble over the next ten years."

No comment.

interfixus' point is that the EU crumbling is a good thing for everyone involved, hence not a "doomsday".

Exactly, yes, thank you. I assumed that was obvious, but I can see how it wouldn't necessarily be to someone coming from another direction.

interfixus point is that the EU will crumble

"The EU is going to fragment and crumble over the next ten years."

The EU will probably strengthen after brexit.

Watch out what you wish for.

If the eu falls there will be huge economic suffering, it will mean almost certain war, and probably an invasion by Putin in the east after he takes Ukraine.